Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahoss
You never answered....how can one be against the Maximum Security DQ (where a horse took out multiple runners) but think this was obvious.
I’m genuinely curious about the thought process here.
|
Because I primarily follow racing that uses "Category 1" rules, whereby the only questions the stewards have to resolve are: did interference occur, and if so, would horse B have finished ahead of horse A had interference not occurred? Based on this, any preposition that War of Will and/or Long Range Toddy would have finished ahead of Maximum Security is nothing but baseless conjecture. Was the interference suffered by WoW more than what happened at Tampa? Yes. Was it enough to cause a 4.5L losing margin? No. WoW lost at most 0.5-1L in that incident. How can you DQ a horse who was much the best because of an incident which cost the horse a quarter of the losing margin? (yes I know MS was placed behind LRT, which was absurd on its own right as that horse was done and everyone knows it)
The TAM result was a headbob and there is a valid argument that without the interference the 5 would have gotten up. Based on the distance between MS and WoW and the loss of lengths suffered with the interference, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that WoW (or LRT) would have finished ahead of MS had interference not occurred.
Yes, the rule in the States is different, but I still don't think it warranted a DQ. LRT was finishing nowhere near the top five, and WoW finished 1.25L from the 5th horse, which is more than the 0.5-1L he lost in that incident.
And yes, Category 1 rules work because jockeys actually get proper suspensions instead of slaps on the wrist.